The STATES 2.0 Act would dramatically reshape federal treatment of marijuana. It creates a broad carve-out from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) for marijuana produced, possessed, distributed, or delivered in compliance with state or federally recognized tribal law where marijuana is legally permitted. It would allow interstate transportation of marijuana between states that permit its manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery, subject to state/place restrictions. The bill would remove marijuana from the CSA scheduling process and require a federal regulatory framework funded in part by a federal marijuana excise tax. It also tasks the FDA with regulating marijuana products (under its existing food, drug, and cosmetic authorities) and establishes a Federal emphasis on youth protections, with some age-related exceptions for medicinal use. Finally, it directs a Comptroller General study on how marijuana legalization affects traffic safety and requires regulatory rulemaking and a report timeline. In short, STATES 2.0 aims to empower states and tribes to govern marijuana with a federally recognized framework, create a pathway for interstate commerce where allowed, bring marijuana products under FDA oversight (with specific product categories), and fund/monitor the program while studying public safety implications.
Key Points
- 1Federal carve-out and scheduling removal for state/tribal-legal marijuana
- 2- Notwithstanding other laws, CSA provisions as applied to marijuana would not apply to marijuana produced, possessed, distributed, etc., in compliance with state law (and tribal law within federally recognized Indian country) where marijuana is permitted.
- 3- The Act would deem marijuana produced/possesed in compliance with state or tribal law not to meet schedule requirements, with an Attorney General rule to finalize this within 180 days of enactment.
- 4- There are specified exceptions (e.g., other controlled substances, violations of state/tribal law, or employing someone under 18 for marijuana activities).
- 5Interstate transportation framework
- 6- State and tribal regulation: No state or tribal authority may prohibit the transportation of marijuana through its borders if origin and destination permit its manufacture/possession/distribution, with room for time/place/manner restrictions to protect health and safety.
- 7- Federal law would not apply to persons engaged in marijuana transportation between states that permit it, subject to the same exceptions as above.
- 8FDA/health-regulatory regime for marijuana products
- 9- Marijuana products would be categorized under FDA oversight depending on their intended use (drug, food, dietary supplement, cosmetic, or other products) with appropriate regulatory treatment.
- 10- Specific rules would: require certain marijuana products to follow drug/food/dietary supplement/cosmetic regulations; require testing for contaminants, manufacturing controls, and post-market reporting (with a focus on youth protection); prohibit marketing of marijuana products in combination with certain other regulated products; and not require premarket approval for products that fall under “other products.”
- 11- The FDA framework would apply to products described and would extend to regulate products treated as foods, dietary supplements, cosmetics, or drugs depending on their classification.
- 12Public safety, age, and enforcement adjustments
- 13- Transportation safety offenses would be adjusted to accommodate compliance with the new section on interstate transport (Sec. 710).
- 14- Provisions for distribution to persons under age 21 would be modified: certain medicinal marijuana distributions by those 18 or older to individuals under 21 could be exempt from some penalties when done in compliance with the new 710 framework.
- 15- The rule would also include restrictions to prevent youth access and ensure safety.
- 16Oversight, study, and funding
- 17- A Comptroller General study is required to assess marijuana legalization’s impact on traffic safety, including impairment assessment, testing standards, state actions, and federal support programs.
- 18- The bill envisions a broader federal regulatory program (funded by the proposed framework) and requires reporting to Congress within a year on the study’s findings and recommendations.
- 19- It reiterates a rule of construction clarifying that compliance with the act does not create unlawful trafficking and does not trigger certain penalties or tax treatment, and that proceeds from compliant activity are not illicit profits.